Chapter 3 The NEP, Growth and Imbalances in Malaysia,

Chapter 3 The NEP, Growth and Imbalances in Malaysia, 1970-2012

Chapter 3 The NEP, Growth and Imbalances in Malaysia, 1970-2012

CHAPTER 3: NEP, GROWTH AND IMBALANCES IN MALAYSIA, 1970-2012 3.1 Outline This chapter will provide a review of the historical record of Malaysia s inclusive policy over the past four decades since the implementation of the NEP in 1970. The purpose of this chapter is to analyse whether the economic policy during this period has been inclusive. The analysis will be undertaken within the framework of inclusive growth as defined in the preceding chapter. The next section will examine the three key characteristics of inclusive growth within the framework of the objective of the NEP i.e. poverty eradication and restructuring of society. It will be followed by the analysis of the remaining challenges of the NEP for the period of 1970-2012. Before concluding, the chapter will explore new dimensions of inclusiveness, moving beyond the standard measure of income and poverty as recommended by Sen, Stiglitz and Fitoussi (2009). 3.2 Pro-poor policy 3.2.1 Poverty The NEP was introduced with the primary objective of attaining national unity, via the dual prongs of eradication of poverty regardless of race, and acceleration of social restructuring to reduce and eventually eliminate of the identification of race with economic function. It was introduced after the 13 May 1969 racial riots, of which socioeconomic imbalances among the different ethnic groups and the lack of educational opportunities among the Malays inadequately redressed legacies of the colonial British was diagnosed as main causes (Ungku Aziz et al., 1987; Jomo, 2004; NOC, 1969; Tunku, 2004). The first prong, the eradication of poverty, is of interest in this section given that pro-poor policy is a hallmark of inclusive growth. Under the NEP, the Malaysian government has established a 20-year time frame to equalise economic opportunity for all Malaysians by eliminating the identification of economic function with race. The restructuring objective of the NEP was designed to enable the Bumiputeras increase their share of corporate assets from 4.3% in 1970 to 30% by 1990, in comparison to 40% for non-bumiputeras and 30% for foreigners. To achieve these objectives, the government designed and implemented the NEP, NDP and NVP as affirmative action policies to give effect to the special rights and privileges of the Bumiputera by initiating a variety of protective policies, such as subsidies, quotas, scholarships and licensing and trade concessions. One of the key features of the NEP was that it was predicated upon a rapidly growing economy. This was deemed necessary so as to, inter alia: 1) Provide increased employment or economic opportunities for the poor and other disadvantaged groups to enable them to get out of the poverty trap and participate in mainstream economic activities; and 2) Ensure that distribution did not take place from the reallocation of existing wealth but from expanding and identifying new sources of wealth. The NEP strategy was designed to offset Bumiputeras historical disadvantage in relation to non-bumiputeras (Abdul Rahman Embong, 1996; Ishak Shari, 1995; Malaysia, 1984; Mehmet, 1988; Snodgrass, 1980). The underlying principle of these policies is a betterment of the Bumiputera communities while striking an optimal balance between 31

MALAYSIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2013 - REDESIGNING AN INCLUSIVE FUTURE the goals of economic growth and equity. An analysis of these policies reveals that noneconomic areas such as education, culture and religion were implemented together with affirmative development policies. To reduce poverty, the government focuses on raising income levels and increasing employment opportunities for all Malaysians irrespective of race. The second prong of the NEP strategy was to Figure 3.1: Population and incidence of poverty, 1970-2012 Source: Economic Planning Unit. Note: Year 1970 refers to Peninsular Malaysia only. Figure 3.2: Poverty rate in selected Asian countries (%) Source: ADB. Note: In parentheses, the latest available year. 32

CHAPTER 3: NEP, GROWTH AND IMBALANCES IN MALAYSIA, 1970-2012 Figure 3.3: Poverty rate by ethnic groups Source: Economic Planning Unit. Note: Year 1970 refers to Peninsular Malaysia only. Figure 3.4: Hardcore poverty rate by ethnic groups Source: Economic Planning Unit. Note: Year 1970 refers to Peninsular Malaysia only. be achieved through the promotion of Bumiputeras in educational attainment, upward occupational mobility, in ownership of the corporate sector and the creation of the Bumiputera Commercial and Industrial Community (BCIC). To achieve this, it was envisaged that the government will participate more directly in the establishment and operation of a wide range of productive enterprises (Malaysia, 1971, p.7). The development agenda of Malaysia during the NEP can be regarded as propoor; data from official sources have shown that Malaysians have become less poor since the introduction of NEP. Despite an increase in population by nearly three times since 1970, there are fewer people living in poverty than there were more than four decades ago (Figure 3.1). While almost half of the population was in poverty in 1970, the poverty rate has since dropped dramatically to 16.5% in 1990, and 1.7% in 2012. Compared to other selected countries, the official poverty rate in Malaysia is considered among the lowest in the region (Figure 3.2). The reduction of poverty was evident across all ethnic groups (Figure 3.3). Among Bumiputeras, the poverty rate decreased from 65% in 1970 to slightly more than two per cent in 2012, meaning that millions have been removed from poverty. Thus, the notion that the policy benefited small groups of people is factually incorrect 1. The same rapid reduction occurred among the Chinese and the Indians, where the poverty rates dropped to about 0.3% and 1.8% respectively in 2012. Hardcore poverty was also reduced significantly for all ethnic groups, with almost total eradication among all the ethnic groups. Among the Chinese, there has been zero incidence of Despite an increase in population by nearly three times since 1970, there are fewer people living in poverty than there were more than four decades ago. hardcore poverty, while for the Bumiputeras and the Indians, the numbers are quite insignificant, at 0.3% and 0.2% respectively (Figure 3.4). The success of poverty The notion the policy benefited small groups of people is factually incorrect. 1 For instance, Ramon Navaratnam argues that NEP benefited only 1,000 families (Tony Pua 2011, p.44) 33

MALAYSIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2013 - REDESIGNING AN INCLUSIVE FUTURE Table 3.1: Income growth by income class and ethnicity Average Annual Growth* (1970-1989) Average Annual Growth* (1989-2009) Average Annual Growth* (1970-2012) Top 20% Malaysia 7.58% 6.29% 6.91% By Ethnicity Bumiputera 8.95% 7.13% 7.86% Chinese 7.26% 5.81% 6.61% Indian 6.76% 6.37% 6.82% Middle 40% Malaysia 8.54% 6.53% 7.54% By Ethnicity Bumiputera 9.40% 7.09% 8.19% Chinese 8.21% 5.78% 7.07% Indian 8.38% 6.10% 7.31% Bottom 40% Malaysia 9.41% 6.35% 7.89% By Ethnicity Bumiputera 10.12% 6.69% 8.40% Chinese 8.43% 5.64% 7.13% Indian 8.45% 5.57% 7.02% Source: Economic Planning Unit, authors calculations. Note: In nominal terms. eradication is acknowledged by the World Bank where it stated, The NEP contributed to poverty reduction and helped provide opportunities to poor household. (World Bank, 2013c, p.47). The successful economic development witnessed in the past decades resulted in the eradication of hardcore poverty via an increase in household income for the population; From 1970-2012, the average household income grew by 7.3% annually. Comparison by income class shows that the bottom 40% of income earners enjoyed the highest income growth (Table 3.1). In the same period, the growth rate for the bottom 40% was 7.9%, higher than the 6.9% registered for the top 20% and the 7.5% for the middle income households. If we decompose the growth rate by ethnicity, the growth rate fits the objectives of a pro-poor strategy: the growth rate for the period of 1970-2012 is the highest among the poor of all ethnic groups, followed closely by the middle 40% of income earners (except for the Indians), while the rich saw the slowest income growth. In fact, the growth rate for the poor was at its highest during the official period of the NEP (1970-1990), where it grew by more than 9.41%, or higher than 7.5% registered by the rich. The argument that the policy benefited only Bumiputeras, or only rich Bumiputeras at the expense of poor Bumiputeras and the non-bumiputeras is factually and empirically incorrect 2. Data shows that the poor Bumiputeras income growth from 1970-2012 was 8.4%, higher than the 7.9% growth rate registered for rich Bumiputeras. 3.2.2 Inequality However, does this significant increase in income, especially among the poor, and drastic reduction in poverty mean that 2 See for instance James Chin (2009), Terence Gomez (2013) and Wan Saiful (2011) who argued that the NEP only benefited rich Bumiputeras, or Bumiputeras at the expense of other ethnic groups. 34

CHAPTER 3: NEP, GROWTH AND IMBALANCES IN MALAYSIA, 1970-2012 Figure: 3.5: Malaysia: Gini coefficient Figure 3.6: Gini: selected countries (latest survey) Source: Economic Planning Unit, UNDP HDR 2013, except for Malaysia (2012 HIS). Source: Economic Planning Unit, UNDP HDR 2013, except for Malaysia (2012 HIS). Malaysia has become a more equitable place? Is Malaysian income more evenly distributed today than it was in 1970? Available evidence of the national distribution of income indicates a steady decline in inequality; the Gini coefficient dropped by about 16% from 0.51 in 1970 to 0.43 in 2012. Compared to other selected economies, the level of inequality in Malaysia does not seem as high. Contrary to claims that inequality in Malaysia is the highest in the region, data shows otherwise; inequalities among Malaysia s neighbours are in fact much higher (Figure 3.6). Among the ethnic groups in Malaysia, inequality is the highest among the Indians, at 0.443, followed closely by the Bumiputera and the Chinese, both at 0.42 (Figure 3.7). However, the reduction of inequality is most pronounced among the Bumiputera where inequality dropped by 9.7% during the period of 1970 to 2012, followed closely by the Chinese at 9.4% and the Indians at 6.1%. Inequality within urban and rural areas declined more sizeably, dropping by about 23% among urban households and 19% among rural households during the same period (Figure 3.8). These reductions in household income inequality should temper arguments or that perceptions inequality in Malaysia has risen 3. However, the method of measuring inequality using the Gini coefficient index fails to capture the dynamics in inequality within each ethnic group, nor the contribution of the ethnic component to overall inequality. Using the Theil Index of Malaysian households income profiles, analysis shows that the between-ethnic group component has been decreasing steadily since 1970, and its contribution to overall inequality in 2009 is now minimal at about four per cent. This implies two things: the policy has managed to reduce between-group inequality, and the overall inequality is currently almost entirely contributed within each Among the ethnic groups in Malaysia, inequality is the highest among the Indians, followed closely by the Bumiputera and the Chinese. 3 See Gomez, E. T. and Saravanamuthu, J. (2013) who argue that NEP caused problems such as intra-bumiputera wealth disparities as well as urban-rural spatial inequalities. ADB (2013) also wrongly stated that income inequality within the Bumiputera community has worsened considerably. 35

MALAYSIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2013 - REDESIGNING AN INCLUSIVE FUTURE Figure: 3.7: Gini by ethnic group Figure 3.8: Gini by location Source: Economic Planning Unit. Source: Economic Planning Unit. group itself. If the analysis include strata and gender along with ethnicity the within group contribution to inequality is about 90% of total inequality. This means that even if disparity between groups i.e. gender, strata or ethnicity is eliminated, inequality will still remain due to within group inequalities. How about the income gap between groups and strata? Data show that there has been tremendous reduction in income gap in between the relatively higher income Chinese versus the non- Chinese, and between urban and rural households (Figure 3.9 & 3.10). For instance, the income gap between the Bumiputeras and the Chinese has been reduced by about 50% from 2.16 in 1957 to 1.43 in 2012, while the income gap between the Bumiputeras and the Indians decreased by 33%, with the current income disparity standing at 1.17. Nonetheless, there is slight increase in income gap between the Bumiputeras and the non-bumiputeras for the period of 2009-2012 where the income gap between the Bumiputeras and the Chinese increased by 5.1%, while with the Indians, the gap jumped by 6.4% during the same period. The income gap between the urban and rural household, meanwhile, also saw a reduction by about 15% from 2.14 in 1970 to 1.86 in 2012. 3.2.3 Growth shared across distinct groups Another key characteristic of inclusive growth is that the benefit of economic growth must be equally shared by everyone. Malaysia s economic progress and development benefited all groups 36

CHAPTER 3: NEP, GROWTH AND IMBALANCES IN MALAYSIA, 1970-2012 Figure: 3.9: Income disparity between ethnic groups Figure 3.10: Income gap by location (rural-urban) Source: Economic Planning Unit. Note: B : C is Bumiputera : Chinese; B : I is Bumiputera : Indian; C : I is Chinese : Indian Source: Economic Planning Unit. almost equally. For instance, the compounded annual income growth rate for the Bumiputera household from 1970-2012 is 8.1%, which is not significantly different from the Indians at seven per cent or the Chinese at 6.8%. The increase in income for all groups is contributed by a high level of employment; the unemployment rate for all ethnic groups reduced significantly, from about 11% in 1970 to three per cent in 2012 for the Indians, from seven per cent to 2.2% for the Chinese, and from eight per cent to 3.5% Figure 3.11: Unemployment rate by ethnicity, 1970-2012 Source: Various Malaysia Plans, Department of Statistics. 37

MALAYSIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2013 - REDESIGNING AN INCLUSIVE FUTURE Figure 3.12: Ownership of equity by groups Source: Economic Planning Unit. Note: nominees companies are assigned Others. for Bumiputeras respectively (Figure 3.11). Additionally, the period saw an increase in asset ownership across all ethnic groups, largely at the expense of non-residents in the 1970s and 1980s (Figure 3.12). For instance, the equity share of Bumiputeras increased from 2.4% in 1970 to about 20% in 1990, with the share of non-bumiputera climbed higher to 55.3% from 34.3% during the same period. Towards 2011, however, non-bumiputera share declined while the Bumiputera share continued to grow, to 23.5%. Meanwhile, the share of Figure: 3.13: Average GDP growth (%) Source: IMF World Economic Outlook Database, October 2012. Figure 3.14: Average investment to GDP (%) in selected countries Source: IMF World Economic Outlook Database, October 2012. 38

CHAPTER 3: NEP, GROWTH AND IMBALANCES IN MALAYSIA, 1970-2012 non-residents was shaved by half from slightly less than two-thirds of total equity ownership in 1970 to about onequarter in 1990. Subsequently, the share of equity held by foreigners increased. 3.2.4 Robust and resilient growth The robust rate of decline of inequality and poverty befits taking a closer look at some of its main drivers. Key among them is high and sustainable economic growth another pre-requisite and characteristic of inclusiveness. Malaysia s economic growth rate was resilient; it registered a 7.6% growth rate during the period of 1970-2012 (household income grew by 7.3% during the same period), which is among the highest in the region (Figure 3.13). In fact, compared to comparable non-homogenous countries such as South Africa and Sri Lanka, Malaysia has performed exceptionally well, even better than many of its neighbours that did not pursue affirmative action-type economic policy. This implies that Malaysia s inclusive policy at worst has done no harm to the economy. The resilient economic growth was supported by robust investment activities, with an average investment ratio to the GDP of about 30% during the period of 1970-1990, and remains at almost the same level even if the measurement is stretched longer to 2012. The high and stable investment to GDP ratio registered is also similar to its neighbours (Figure 3.14); in fact, the net FDI inflows into Malaysia were not only positive but also among the highest in the region during 1970-1990. This suggests that the policy did not retard investment, repudiating disparaging claims that the level of investment in Malaysia remained low because of restrictions imposed by economic policy post 1970 4. The high and sustainable growth rate supported by robust investment activities has created new job opportunities; as a result the unemployment rate has been falling from 7.4% in 1970 to about three per cent in 2012. Cross-country comparisons show that the unemployment rate in Malaysia s inclusive policy at worst has done no harm to the economy. Figure 3.15: Unemployment rate in selected countries, 2012 Source: IMF database except Latin American countries (ILO) and North America (World Bank). 4 See for instance Gomez, E. T. and Saravanamuthu, J. (2013) who stated (wrongly) that the level of investment in Malaysia remain low, and Ramon Navaratnam (2011) argues that the NEP and its remains are one of the main reasons for the decline in foreign and domestic investment in Malaysia. 39

MALAYSIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2013 - REDESIGNING AN INCLUSIVE FUTURE Figure 3.16 National unity 1948-1960 Con ict -ridden Era 1960-1970 Stable Tension Era 1970 - now Social Cohesion Era Malaysia is relatively low compared to the regional economies, and even lower than many developed economies (Figure 3.15). For instance, unemployment rates in OECD countries and high income countries in 2012 are about eight per cent, more than double Malaysia s. In sum, the Malaysian development progress from 1970 to 2012 considerably bears the hallmarks of inclusiveness. Benefits of economic growth have been distributed across distinct groups and to the poor regardless of group membership, and opportunities for socioeconomic participation have been increasingly accessible. It is a rather impressive achievement for the country considering that the total cost for poverty eradication and restructuring of society is rather small, at about RM98.7 billion out of total expenditure of RM2,398 billion between the period of the Second Malaysian Plan and the Ninth Malaysian Plan. In other words, the total allocation to poverty is equivalent to about 4.1% of total expenditure of the Malaysian government from 1970 to 2010, while the share of restructuring of society equals to about one per cent, although other factors may also play a role in contributing to the impressive reduction of poverty and restructuring of society. Figure 3.17: Incidence of poverty among Bumiputeras in 2009 Source: HIS 2009, authors calculations. Note: The non-malay Bumiputera sample size might not be representative of its population. 40

CHAPTER 3: NEP, GROWTH AND IMBALANCES IN MALAYSIA, 1970-2012 Figure 3.18: Poverty rate by state in Malaysia, 2012 Source: Economic Planning Unit. Unique to Malaysia, inclusive growth policy was designed with the ultimate objective of national unity. And to a certain extent, it worked, given that the policy has created social and political stability which was an important component of Malaysia s intangible capital that allowed long-term productive investments to be undertaken (World Bank, 2013c, p.47). There has been an improvement in stability from the conflict-ridden era during the period of 1948 to 1960, to the stable tension era from 1960 to 1970, and the social cohesion era that began at the start of the NEP in 1970 (Shamsul, 2004), followed by the social cohesion era post 1969 racial riot (Shamsul, 2010). The shift from stable tension to social cohesion is one of the key factors if not the key factor for breeding a conducive and stable environment for businesses and investments. 3.2.5 Challenges remain Although there has been great and unprecedented progress in the reduction of extreme poverty since 1970, there is however heterogeneity in poverty level by groups, especially among Bumiputeras. For instance, although the poverty rate for Bumiputeras in 2009 is 5.3%, the poverty rate for the Kadazan Dusun and Murut in Sabah are four times higher at about 25% (Figure 3.17). Chapter 10 in this Report elaborates on the state of poverty and lagging development among Bumiputera minorities. Disparity in poverty rate among states also shows skewed distribution; the poverty rate in Sabah, at 8.1% is significantly higher than the state with the lowest poverty rate i.e. Malacca, at 0.1% (Figure 3.18). In addition, if poverty is measured using the relative poverty rate 5 (defined as less than half of the median income), as suggested in the NEM, about 20% of Malaysian households are considered poor (Figure 3.19). Among ethnic groups, the relative poverty rate has climbed since 1989, with the current highest relative poverty rate Unique to Malaysia, inclusive growth policy was designed with the ultimate objective of national unity. And to a certain extent, it worked. 41

MALAYSIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2013 - REDESIGNING AN INCLUSIVE FUTURE among the Malays at 19.1%, followed by the Chinese at 17.9% (Figure 3.20). The lowest relative poverty rate is registered for the Others, at 13%. Relative poverty rate registered in urban and rural households has remain stagnant since 1989, where the rate for the urban households in 1989 was 18.2%, almost identical to 18.3% in 2012 (Figure 3.21). Among rural households, however, it has improved from 17.2% to 14.6% during the same period. This is in contrast to the normal convention of measuring poverty using the poverty line income, where the official data show the poverty rate decreasing for all ethnic groups, as well as among the urban/rural areas. Measurement of poverty using relative measurement indicates mixed result. Additionally, despite the fact that household income for all groups has been increasing since 1970, income disparity has remained unchanged from 1990. For instance, the relative income gap between the rich (top 20%) and the poor (bottom 40%) in 1989 was about seven times, and it remained at identical levels in 2012 (Figure 3.22). The relative gap between Figure 3.19: Incidence of relative poverty in Malaysia, 1989-2012 Source: Household Income Survey, various years, authors calculations. Figure 3.20: Relative poverty in Malaysia by ethnicity 1989-2012 Source: Household Income Survey, various years, authors calculations. 5 Relative income poverty is measured here using the OECD definition, where the poverty rate is the ratio of the number of people who fall below the poverty line and the total population; the poverty line is here taken as half the median household income. 42

CHAPTER 3: NEP, GROWTH AND IMBALANCES IN MALAYSIA, 1970-2012 Figure 3.21: Relative poverty in Malaysia by strata 1989-2012 Source: Household Income Survey, various years, authors calculations. the urban and rural also has stagnated during the same period, at about 1.8 times. Incidentally, the gap in 2012 is the same as in 1957, the year Malaya obtained its independence from the British (Figure 3.23). Thus, overall inequality, measured by Gini, although dropping steadily from 1970 until the official expiration of NEP, has been on a slight rollercoaster and has remained at almost the same level since. Although inequality has remained stagnant in the past two decades, regional comparisons show that with the exception of Vietnam, Cambodia, Nepal and Thailand, which registered slight reduction in Gini coefficient, inequality has increased across most of the region during the same period (Balakrishnan, Steinberg and Syed, 2013). Therefore, addressing the stagnation of progress in reducing inequality is a key challenge moving forward, given that stagnation or an increase in inequality would dampen the impact of growth on poverty reduction. While we acknowledge that using other measures such as income share, income Figure 3.22: Income gap between top 20% & bottom 40%, in ratio and absolute terms Figure 3.23: Income gap between urban and rural household, in ratio and absolute terms 12 10 9.7 10,312 12,000 10,000 2.5 2.0 3,000 2,500 8 6 4 7.0 6.6 8,000 6,000 4,000 1.5 1.0 2,000 1,500 1,000 2 659 0 1970 1974 1976 1979 1984 1987 1989 1992 1995 1997 1999 2002 2004 2007 2009 2012 2,000 0 0.5 0 1957 1970 1974 1976 1979 1984 1987 1989 1992 1995 1997 1999 2002 2004 2007 2009 2012 500 0 Gap $ (RS) Gap (LS) Gap $ (RS) Gap (LS) Source: Economic Planning Unit, authors calculations. Source: Economic Planning Unit, authors calculations. 43

MALAYSIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2013 - REDESIGNING AN INCLUSIVE FUTURE ratio and Gini coefficient have shown an improvement in income disparity, the income gap between the top 20% and bottom 40% of households when measured in absolute terms, has actually increased during the period of 1970 to 2012 (Figure 3.24). For instance, the income gap between the rich and the poor jumped 13 times from If the income gap between the top 20% and bottom 40% of households is measured in absolute terms, it has actually increased during the period of 1970 to 2012. RM659 in 1970 to RM10,312 in 2012. The absolute gap between the urban and rural also widened, from RM228 in 1970 to RM2,262 in 2012, an increase by about 11 times. In terms of ethnicity, the highest gap in absolute terms was registered among Bumiputeras, where the income gap jumped by nearly 20 times compared to 11 times for the Chinese and the Indians during the period of 1970 to 2009. Importantly, the widening gap appears to have come from increased income disparities within the groups, be it ethnic, strata or gender. 3.3 Other dimensions of inclusiveness While the focus for the past four decades has been almost exclusively on reducing poverty and closing the income gap between ethnic groups, new priorities have emerged, requiring new approaches to reflect these changes. Following Stiglitz, Sen and Fitoussi (2008), new measurements of inclusiveness must not only focus on income, but also wealth and consumption. In addition, the average measures of income, consumption and wealth should be accompanied by indicators that reflect their distribution. In addition, the new dimension of inclusiveness must also simultaneously consider non-economic indicators such as social stratifications, education, health and employment opportunities. The next few sections will address several of these dimensions, specifically income distribution, wealth, wages and employment opportunities. Figure 3.24: Gap in absolute terms between top 20% and bottom 20% (in Ringgit Malaysia) Source: Economic Planning Unit, authors calculations. 44

CHAPTER 3: NEP, GROWTH AND IMBALANCES IN MALAYSIA, 1970-2012 Figure 3.25: Income share distribution, 1989-2012 Source: Household Income Survey, various years, authors calculations. 3.3.1 Income distribution It is important that in tackling inequality, equal attention must be paid to both the poorest as well as the richest. Analysis on income distribution shows that the income share that accrued to the top onetenth of the population in 2012 at 32% is higher than the income share controlled by the bottom half at 21.5%, and the gap between them has remained steady for the past three decades (Figure 3.25). In other words, the share of the poor and middle class has not improved during the same period. Alternatively, we can also measure the progress of inequality by looking at the Palma ratio. Using the Palma ratio the ratio of the top 10% of the population s share of income, divided by the poorest 40% of the population share of income gives us an alternative measure of inequality. The choice of cut-off decile of top 10% and bottom 40% is due to the fact that, although the middle class tends to capture around half of the national income in many countries with different income levels, the other half is shared unequally between the top 10% and bottom 40%. In Figure 3.26: Ratio of income distribution share of top 10% to bottom 40%, Malaysia, 1989-2012 Source: Household Income Survey, various years, authors calculations. 45

MALAYSIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2013 - REDESIGNING AN INCLUSIVE FUTURE Figure 3.27: Income distribution share by decile, Malaysia, 2002 & 2012 Source: Household Income Survey, various years, authors calculations. Figure 3.28: Average household monthly income by state 2012 Source: Economic Planning Unit. Figure 3.29: Mean wealth per capita by ethnicity and strata Source: Household Income Survey, various years, authors calculations. 46

CHAPTER 3: NEP, GROWTH AND IMBALANCES IN MALAYSIA, 1970-2012 more equal societies this ratio would be one or below, meaning that the top 10% would not receive a larger share of the national income than the bottom 40%. In very unequal societies, the ratio may be as high as seven. Therefore, looking at the Palma ratio will give another insight to the extent of inequality in Malaysia. Using data from HIS 2012, the analysis shows that the ratio of income distribution of the top 10% to the bottom 40% in 2012 is about 2.16 times not quite alarming but identical to the ratio in 1989 (Figure 3.26 & 3.27). Breaking this down by ethnicity, the ratio is the highest among the non- Malay Bumiputeras at 1.24, followed by the Malays, Chinese, Indians and Others at 0.54, 0.52, 0.48 and 0.45 respectively. In terms of strata, the ratio is much less, at 0.48 for the urban and 0.38 for the rural. There is also heterogeneity in average household income by state (Figure 3.28). The gap between the state with the highest average monthly household income (Kuala Lumpur) and the poorest (Kelantan) stands at about RM5,418. In other words, the richest state has about 2.7 times more income than the poorest. It should be noted that this is an improvement over 1976, where the same ratio stood at 3.9. 3.3.2 Asset inequality Asset ownership is another new indicator that can reveal the level of inclusiveness in a particular society. Ownership of assets is a powerful enabler in social and economic progress, and the lack of it can seriously impede economic and socio-mobility. Following Muhammed s (2011) approach and methodology in generating wealth distribution and inequality using HIS data, our analysis shows that the median 6 wealth per capita in Malaysia for the year 2009 was RM113,644, and registered a 10% compounded growth during the period of 1989 to 2009. As with income, Chinese has the highest wealth per capita at about RM163,000, followed by the Indians at about RM110,612 (Figure 3.29). The Malays on the other hand have slightly more than half (55%) of the Chinese wealth, while Others have 53% of the Chinese. Compared to the Malays, the average wealth per capita of non-malay Bumiputeras is 87% of the Malays, or about RM78,278. In terms of strata, those living in the urban areas would have about 55% more than the average wealth per capita of the rural Malaysian, with the latter having an average wealth of RM82,204 Almost all groups ethnic and strata enjoy higher wealth compared to two decades ago, with the highest compounded growth for Indians at 12%, with the Chinese, Others and Urban Malaysians registering 10% growth in average wealth. The Malays meanwhile registered a slightly smaller growth, at 9.5%, while rural Malaysians experienced the slowest growth in wealth accumulation at 8.6%. However, from the strata angle, we see marginal improvements in the Malaysian wealth Gini. The Gini coefficient of wealth per capita for urban dwellers has only reduced from 0.54 in 1989 to 0.50 in 2009, while for rural citizens, wealth per capita inequality has reduced more significantly from 0.48 to 0.38. Not surprisingly, the Gini coefficient for median wealth per capita for Malaysia in 2012 was 0.81, higher than the Gini for income at 0.43, although still lower than the average in the Asia Pacific and the world at 0.89 and 0.9 respectively (Figure 3.30). The richest state has about 2.7 times more income than the poorest. 6 Wealth is defined by wealth per capita, consisting of property value and value of financial assets derived from extrapolating dividend and interest incomes from savings. Value of the financial assets of the household is divided with number of household member and added to the value of property assets, to arrive at a wealth per capita number. 47

MALAYSIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2013 - REDESIGNING AN INCLUSIVE FUTURE Figure 3.30: Gini coefficient on median wealth per adult, 2012 Source: Credit Suisse Global Wealth Outlook 2012. Figure 3.31: Wealth distribution share by decile, 2009 Source: Household Income Survey 2009, authors calculations. Figure 3.32: Total wealth of top 40 richest to GDP Source (GDP): World Bank, Department of Statistics Singapore and US Bureau of Economics. Note: GDP at current prices (USD), Malaysia and Thailand GDP for year 2012, US and Singapore year 2011. 48

CHAPTER 3: NEP, GROWTH AND IMBALANCES IN MALAYSIA, 1970-2012 The distribution of wealth is extremely skewed. The specific methodology to calculate wealth that is employed by this report provides an indication of the concentration of wealth in the higher deciles and hence, the policies focused on the bottom 40% continues to be relevant and can be strengthened moving forward. The extreme concentration of wealth is evident when compared to the size of the economy (Figure 3.32). The total wealth of the richest 40 Malaysians is equivalent to 22% of the country s GDP, an increase from 15.7% in 2006. In relative terms, Malaysia s 40 richest individuals are in fact much wealthier than the top 40 richest individuals from the United States, Singapore or Thailand. If the distribution of wealth is broken down to its components i.e. financial assets and property assets, the inequality of the former is more extreme compared to the latter. The financial asset inequality by groups shows that inequality in financial assets is equally high across all ethnicities and strata, although it is slightly higher among the Others, at a Gini coefficient of 0.82 (Figure 3.33). It has however decreased marginally in the past two decades for all ethnicities and strata, although among the Others and the rural Malaysians the inequality rate has climbed. The analysis using household data shows that 53% of Malaysian households has no financial assets, with rural households having the highest number of those without any financial assets (63%), compared to urban households (45%). If we dissect the distribution of financial asset, analysis from HIS 2009 shows that about 88% of household reported zero earnings from savings, with nearly 90% and 86% of the rural and urban households respectively have zero savings. Our analysis excludes forced savings i.e. savings in the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) as we are interested in precautionary savings given that households do not have access to forced savings in case of immediate income shock or fiscal emergencies. The figure on financial investment, derived from dividend income earned, shows that about 57% The policies focused on the bottom 40% continues to be relevant and can be strengthened moving forward. Figure 3.33: Financial assets: Gini coefficient Source: Household Income Survey, authors calculations. 49

MALAYSIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2013 - REDESIGNING AN INCLUSIVE FUTURE of Malaysian households reported zero earnings from investment, with the figure for urban households at 50%, and rural households at 66%. The low savings among Malaysian households, although quite alarming, is not unexpected. Although Malaysia has a relatively high gross national savings rate, the bulk of the savings is from the corporate sector, with a small contribution from the households. Latest available data from Department of Statistics (DOS) on the distribution and use of income and capital accounts shows that in 2009, households contributed about 2.2% to national gross savings, while the corporate sector (nonfinancial and financial corporations) accounts for about 91%, while the remaining comes from the government sector (DOS, 2013, Chart 4). The gross national savings rate, as percentage of Gross National Income, in 2009 stood at 31.6% (BNM 2011, Table 1.2a). Among ethnic groups, about 57% of non-malay Bumiputeras and 55% of Malays have no financial assets, with the figure for the Chinese and Indians at 45% and 44% respectively. In other words, roughly one out of two Malays, non-malay Bumiputeras, Chinese and Indians have no immediate liquid financial assets, making them vulnerable in the event of an income or employment shock. Apart from low household precautionary savings or financial assets, there is also a stark gap in compulsory savings among Malaysians. Data from EPF shows that as at end of 2013, about one-fifth of Malaysians who are nearing retirement age (between the ages of 51-55) have less than RM 20,000 in savings, while nearly 70% of those at the age of 54 have savings less than RM 50,000. In other words, assuming a monthly expenditure of RM 900 per month, the savings of the former could sustain their basic lifestyle for 1.8 years, while for the latter, the figure stands at 4.6 years. Given that average life expectancy in Malaysia is 72.6 years (male) and 77.2 (female), majority of Malaysians would be without any savings for more than a decade after retirement. The low amount of savings in not surprising, as a majority of Malaysians earn low wages. The monthly wage distribution from EPF shows that in 2013, one-third or 2.1 million active members earn less than RM 1,000, slightly more than three-fourth (76.8%) earn less than RM 3,000, and about 90% earn less than RM 5,000 per month. As expected, the inequality in compulsory savings is rather extreme, where the top 1.7% of depositors in EPF has more savings than the savings of the entire bottom 57% combined. The high level of financial inequality in Malaysia should not be surprising. The distribution of the Amanah Saham Bumiputera 7 (ASB) for 2012 showed that although the average investment equalled RM14,096, about 74% of unit holders have an average investment of RM611. In other words, their share is equivalent to 3.2% of the total deposit into the ASB (Table 3.2). Strikingly, the share of the top 0.2% is much higher 2.4 times than the share of the entire bottom 74%. Looking at it differently, these top 0.2% depositors with an average investment of RM692,087 have 1,132 times the financial assets more than the bottom 74% combined, and their share of the fund size is more than double than the bottom 74% of depositors. It is worth noting that 30% of the total fund size in ASB is financed via borrowings, as data from Bank Negara Malaysia shows that loan amount outstanding for purchase of ASB units as of 31 December 2011 amount to 7 Amanah Saham Bumiputera is a unit trust scheme open only for Bumiputeras. 50

CHAPTER 3: NEP, GROWTH AND IMBALANCES IN MALAYSIA, 1970-2012 Table 3.2: ASB distribution 2005 and 2012 ASB As of 31 December 2005 Size of holdings (units) % of unit holders Average Account Size (RM) % of value (RM) 5,000 and below 79.9% 497 5.4% 5,001 to 10,000 6.4% 5,789 5.0% 10,001 to 50,000 9.8% 18,229 24.2% 50,001 to 100,000 1.9% 64,628 16.2% 100,001 to 150,000 0.8% 112,167 12.7% 150,001 and above 1.1% 250,910 36.4% As of 31 December 2012 Size of holdings (units) % of unit holders Average Account Size (RM) % of value (RM) 5,000 and below 73.7% 611 3.2% 5,001 to 10,000 5.7% 6,676 2.7% 10,001 to 50,000 12.8% 22,599 20.5% 50,001 to 500,000 7.7% 121,068 65.9% 500,001 and above 0.2% 692,087 7.7% Source: PNB Annual Report 2008, 2012, authors calculations. RM28.8 billion (total fund size in 2011: RM 95.9 billion). The distribution pattern of the Amanah Saham Nasional Berhad is another significant indicator of wealth distribution, considering that the fund constitutes about half of the mutual funds market share in Malaysia. The annual reports in 2005 and 2012 of the ASB both reveal significant differences between the top account holders and the bottom majority. In 2005, almost 80% of account holders (approximately 4.7 million account holders) account for only 5.4% of the asset value, while the top 1.1% (approximately 63,000 accounts) alone hold 36.4% of the assets under ASB management. The picture barely changes in 2012; the share of the bottom 80% increased slightly to 5.9%, with their average investment increased from about RM500 in 2005 to RM611 in 2012, translating into a compounded growth rate of four per cent during the period. The extreme distribution of financial assets can be seen from the share of the top depositors; the top 0.2% of account holders hold more than the value of assets held by the bottom 80% in 2012. Not surprisingly, the same extreme distribution pattern is replicated in another premier investment avenue for Bumiputeras i.e. Tabung Haji. The top 0.1% of investors in Tabung Haji 51

MALAYSIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2013 - REDESIGNING AN INCLUSIVE FUTURE Table 3.3 : Distribution of Tabung Haji depositors, 2012 Tabung Haji As of 31 December 2012 Size of holdings (units) % of unit holders Average value (RM) % of value (RM) 5,000 and below 87.1% 566 11.3% 5,001 to 10,000 4.9% 7,042 7.8% 10,001 to 50,000 6.8% 19,766 30.7% 50,001 to 500,000 1.2% 113,082 30.6% 500,001 and above 0.1% 1,403,442 19.6% Source: Lembaga Tabung Haji, authors calculations. Only about 66% of Malaysians above the age of 15 have accounts at a formal financial institution. has an average investment of nearly RM1.4 million, while the bottom 87% has an average investment of RM567, translating into a gap of nearly 2,500 times. In other words, the share of the top 0.1% of depositors in Tabung Haji which is about 20%, is nearly the same as the share of the bottom 92% combined. In comparison, the income gap between the average household income of top 0.1% and the average household income of the bottom 87% is only 21 times. The unequal distribution in financial assets may have contributed to the lack of financial inclusion, indicated by the access to financial accounts. It is important to pay close attention to the level of financial inclusion as it is a prerequisite for poverty reduction and social cohesion. The data on financial inclusion in Malaysia shows that only about 66% of Malaysians above the age of 15 have accounts at a formal financial institution 8. This is much lower compared to developed economies such as Figure 3.34: Account at a formal financial institution (%, of age 15+) Source: WB Financial Inclusion database. Note: Financial institution refers to bank, credit union, microfinance institution, or another financial institution such as a cooperative. 52

CHAPTER 3: NEP, GROWTH AND IMBALANCES IN MALAYSIA, 1970-2012 Figure 3.35: Malaysia: Source of Individual borrowing, 2011 Figure 3.36: Malaysia: loan from financial institutions by income, 2011 19.9 17.4 % 11.2 % 2.2 4.8 1.8 Loan from a private lender Loan from an employer Loan from a nancial institution Loan from family or friends Loan from a nancial institution, income, bottom 40% Loan from a nancial institution, income, top 60% Source: WB Financial Inclusion database. Note: Financial institution refers to bank, credit union, microfinance institution or another financial institution such as a cooperative. Singapore and Australia which have nearly 100% of its population having a financial account (Figure 3.34). Despite the fact that Malaysia is generally regarded as having well-developed equity and debt markets 165% and 97% respectively relative to GDP in 2011 about one-third of Malaysians still do not have any kind of banking or financial account. Among the bottom 40%, the figure is much higher (50%); in other words, one out of two low-income Malaysians do not have any financial accounts. Access to formal credit (or lack thereof) may also be the reason for the absence of Source: WB Financial Inclusion database. Note: Financial institution refers to bank, credit union, microfinance institution or another financial institution such as a cooperative. financial assets; only 11% of Malaysians borrowed from financial institutions in 2011, whereas nearly 27% borrow from other sources such as family members, employers or a private lender (Figure 3.35). The breakdown by income class shows that less than two per cent of the bottom 40% of income earners borrow from formal financial institutions compared to 17.4% from the top 60% of income earners (Figure 3.36). The lack of financial assets, especially for the bottom 40%, severely limits their ability to borrow, invest, save and improve their economic opportunities. Box Article 3.1: Affordable housing in Malaysia How affordable are residential properties in Malaysia? Anecdotal evidence suggests that property prices are now beyond the reach of the average Malaysian, with rising prices contributing to the increase in household indebtedness. Household debt in Malaysia has nearly doubled from 47% of GDP in 2000 to 83% in 2012, and housing loans make up half of household indebtedness. The federal government has responded by establishing PR1MA to develop affordable housing for middle-income households (those earning between RM2,500 and RM7,500) in key urban centres offering properties between RM100,000 and RM400,000. However, standard calculations in measuring housing affordability show that the 8 Data from Bank Negara Malaysia shows that percentage of Malaysian population with savings/deposit account in 2013 is 91.5%. 53

MALAYSIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2013 - REDESIGNING AN INCLUSIVE FUTURE Figure 1: Affordability ratio price offered is insufficient in making housing affordable. The World Bank suggests using house affordability index housing is considered affordable if the house price does not exceed three times the annual household income. By this measurement, the property prices quoted by PR1MA remains unaffordable; households earning a minimum of RM2,500 a month can only afford property below RM90,000, while those earning up to RM7,500 a month can only afford property costing Figure 2: House affordability index, selected cities 2009 Figure 3: Malaysian household with zero property asset, by race and strata Indian Urban 32% 34% Malay Non-Malay Bumi Malaysia 26% 27% 27% Chinese Rural 17% 19% 54

CHAPTER 3: NEP, GROWTH AND IMBALANCES IN MALAYSIA, 1970-2012 less than RM270,000. Breakdowns by state reveal that, with the exception of Terengganu and Kelantan, residential properties are considered unaffordable (Figure 1). Seven states have an index of more than 5, meaning that residential properties in these states are considered severely unaffordable. Interestingly, comparing to other cities around the world, it is relatively more expensive to own a residential property in Penang, Putrajaya and Kuala Lumpur (Figure 2). Housing unaffordability also means that the average Malaysian will face difficulties in purchasing a house. Data from income survey shows that about 26% of Malaysians have no property assets; breakdowns by location reveal that nearly one-third of urban Malaysians do not have any property asset, compared to just 17% of the rural household (Figure 3). Among the ethnic groups, 34% of Indians do not have property assets; with the Chinese having the lowest percentage of household without any property ownership. More troubling is that about half of households in Kuala Lumpur has no property assets, while Putrajaya the government administration centre has the highest number of households without home ownership. Only one in ten of households in Putrajaya, mainly comprising civil servants, have some form of property ownership. Statistical evidence suggests that owning a residential property in Malaysia is becoming more challenging, meaning that there will be less reliance on property as means of savings for retirement. A lack of assets may impede social mobility given that property assets can be used as collateral for education and business ventures, an important instrument in facilitating upward income mobility. The unaffordability of property in Malaysia is a major challenge, one which policymakers and stakeholders must urgently respond to 1. Sources: Demographia (6th Annual Demographic International Housing Affordability Survey 2010); Ministry of Finance s Valuation & Property Services Department (Property Market Report 2009); Bank Negara s Annual Report (2012). Notes: Affordability index refers to median house price divided by gross annual median household income, except for Malaysia where the average house price is used instead of median due to data unavailability. 1 There are programmes to assist the poor and low income households to own houses. Among others are Program Perumahan Rakyat (PPR), Program Bantuan Rumah (PBR), Perumahan Mampu Milik and Skim Rumah Pertamaku. In the 2014 Budget, The Government has increased the real property gains tax to 30% avoid speculation in the industry and to enable genuine to purchase houses. 3.3.3 Wage inequality Another new dimension of inequality which requires close attention is wages. If the priority before is to ensure full employment, the new challenge is to ensure that wage growth is equally shared. For instance, there is a significant gap between the remuneration of the top employee i.e. the CEO and the average worker (Figure 3.37). Their disparity ratio, although having reduced slightly from 114 times in 1990 to about 100 times in 2009, has in fact jumped from RM272,800 to nearly RM1.7 million during the same period in absolute terms. In other words, the average Malaysian wage earner has to work 98 years to obtain the same earnings of an average CEO in 2011. When compared to selected countries, the disparity ratio in Malaysia is about double 55

MALAYSIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2013 - REDESIGNING AN INCLUSIVE FUTURE The average Malaysian wage earner has to work 98 years to obtain the same earnings of an average CEO in 2011. than that of Singapore, although much less than the United Kingdom or the United States where the average CEO makes about 188 and 233 times more than the average worker respectively (Figure 3.38). The lower wage growth for low income wage earners and the large gap between the CEO and the average Figure 3.37: Disparity between CEO & average Malaysian wages worker occur in an environment of stagnant wage share of national income. It has decreased slightly from 33.8% in 1970 to 32.9% in 2012, while the operating surplus (or corporate profits) has increased from about half of the national income to nearly two-thirds during the same period (Figure 3.39). Compared to other countries, Malaysia s share of wages is considered low; Singapore s share is 42.3%, Korea 50.6%, and the United Kingdom 62.6% (Figure 3.40). The declining share of wages Figure 3.38: Ratio of average CEO salary to average worker s salary for selected countries, 2011 Source: Malaysian Business Magazine various issues, Household Income Survey, ILO Global Wage Database (2011), CIMB (2012), Hay Group 2012, High Pay Center 2012, Rexrode, C. and Condon, B, 2012. Source: Malaysian Business Magazine various issues, Household Income Survey, ILO Global Wage Database (2011), CIMB (2012), Hay Group 2012, High Pay Center 2012, Rexrode, C. and Condon, B, 2012. Figure 3.39: GDP income: share of wages to national income (%) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 14.5 4.5 4.5 4.3 2.8 4.2 3.8 2.5 1.9 51.7 65.9 65.7 65.3 68.0 64.2 64.7 65.6 65.2 33.8 29.5 29.8 30.3 29.3 31.6 31.5 31.9 32.9 1971 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Compensation to Employees Gross Operating Surplus Taxes less Subsidies Source: Department of Statistics 2010 & 2014. 56

CHAPTER 3: NEP, GROWTH AND IMBALANCES IN MALAYSIA, 1970-2012 Figure 3.40: Selected countries: share of wages in national income 70 60 50 40 30 28.6 29.9 32.9 42.3 48.0 50.6 55.0 59.0 62.6 20 10 0 Philippines (2009) India (2009) Malaysia (2012) Singapore (2011) China (2008) South Korea (2010) Japan (2010) United States (2010) United Kingdom (2010) Source: ILO Global Wage Database (2011) except Malaysia (Department of Statistics) and Singapore (Department of Statistics). Note: The wage share refers to unadjusted wage share, which excludes earnings from self-employment. Figure 3.41: Malaysia: union density Source: Ministry of Human Resources Statistics, various years. in Malaysia is perhaps due to the dilution of workers bargaining power (Figure 3.41). Union density has dropped by about 40% since 1982; currently only eight per cent of Malaysian workers belong to a union. 3.3.4 Employment Another dimension of inclusiveness that needs to be addressed, particularly in a non-homogenous society such as Malaysia, is the labour force. In 2012, the distribution of the labour market shows that the majority of the Malaysian workers are engaged in the private sector, equivalent to about 85% of the labour force and 10.7 million people. Civil servants meanwhile constitute about 10% of the labour force, with those in GLCs comprising about five per cent. There is a stark contrast in the distribution of labour force in these two sectors when looking at ethnicity; the public sector is overwhelmingly populated by Bumiputeras, while non-bumiputeras focus on the private sector. The unequal distribution is further complicated by perceptions of bias in the private sector which seem to favour the Chinese, with 57

MALAYSIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2013 - REDESIGNING AN INCLUSIVE FUTURE Figure 3.42: Ethnic composition in the civil service, 2012 (%) Figure 3.43: Ethnic composition in civil service, by level, 2012 81% 91% 19% 8% Managerial & Top Management Bumi Support Sta Non-Bumi Source: Public Services Department. Source: Public Services Department. the public sector widely assumed to favour Bumiputeras. Criticisms of favouritism in the public sector arose partly due to the fact that Bumiputeras form the majority of the public sector; data in 2012 reveals that Bumiputera made up almost 88.9% of total employees in the public sector, with the Chinese at 9.8% and Indians at 1.3% (Figure 3.42). About eight out of 10 officers in the top management and professional and nine out of 10 of support staff are Bumiputeras, with minimal representation by the non-bumiputeras at both levels (Figure 3.43). On the other hand, there are also claims of bias in the Chinese-controlled private sector, particularly in the recruitment or promotional exercises in Chinese-owned businesses. Data in 2005 shows that the Chinese control nearly 60% of the companies listed in the stock market (Figure 3.44). There is empirical evidence suggesting the existence of labour market discrimination against non-chinese Malaysians in the Figure 3.44: Corporate control by ethnicity (%), 2005 Source: Norkhairul & Chakravarty, 2011. 58

CHAPTER 3: NEP, GROWTH AND IMBALANCES IN MALAYSIA, 1970-2012 Figure 3.45: Malaysia: total against female labour force participation rate, 1982-2012 % 80.0 70.0 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1992 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Female labour force participation rate Total labour force participation rate Source: Department of Statistics. private sector. Snodgrass (1980) finds that companies that were headed by the Chinese normally would not employ non- Chinese, a conclusion that is concurred by CMI (2005) who argues that non-chinese face hurdles in entering the private labour market, and those who participated in it are being discriminated against in the form of denied advancement and lower wages or earnings. Wage analysis shows that income for Bumiputeras is lower than the Chinese ranging from 20% to 40% despite having the same key characteristics in terms of education, experience, industry and occupation (Faaland, Parkinson & Saniman, 2003, Milanovic, 2006). The apparent pro-chinese bias is not limited to remunerations or promotions, but also exists in hiring. A recent study reveals that a Malay job applicant will find it harder to be employed in the private sector even if they were similarly qualified compared to Chinese applicants. A field experiment by Lee & Muhammed (2012) sent fictitious Malay and Chinese applicants of comparable quality to real job openings specifically in engineering and accounting/finance entry-level positions and recorded whether one group is more likely to be called for interview than the other. They concluded that Malay candidates face treatment differential when applying for jobs compared to Chinese. Between two comparable resumes, the probability of a Malay applicant being called for an interview is 16.7 percentage points lower The probability of a Malay applicant being called for an interview is 16.7 percentage points lower than that of a Chinese applicant with comparable qualifications. 59

MALAYSIA HUMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT 2013 - REDESIGNING AN INCLUSIVE FUTURE Figure 3.46: Women s share in university and select occupations (%) Source: McKinsey and Company 2012, Exhibit 4. than that of a Chinese applicant with comparable qualifications. Interestingly however, preference for Malay applicants can still be found, to varying extents, among Chinese-controlled, foreign-controlled and Malay-controlled companies. With regards to gender, there has been minor improvements in the female labour participation rate since the early 1980s. Women s participation in the labour force has increased from 45% in 1982 to about 50% in 2012 (Figure 3.45). Nonetheless, compared to other countries in the region, Malaysia has relatively one of the lowest female participation rates in the labour force (Figure 3.46), despite having one of the highest female tertiary penetration rates. Clearly, policies for inclusiveness in terms of economic participation of women such as availability of quality childcare, effective advancement opportunities and a celebration of diversity need to be further considered. Chapter 9 in this Report delves specifically into gender issues looking at women as both participants and beneficiaries of Malaysia s development process. 3.4 Conclusion Malaysia has made great strides in reducing poverty and income inequality through sustained and rapid economic and investment growth since 1970, barring a few recessionary episodes as a result of global contagion. New realities indicate that there are other forms of inequality especially within ethnic groups and strata that need to be addressed. Disparities in wealth, asset ownership, wages and 60